[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.14.0 "металл" 30/Sep/2024)

[Pappystein]

40 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

The current one in BDB is based more on this drawing (which is the cover art for the Big G '69 report, btw, so I trust it more)

Yeah that is for the Titan 23C/24M launcher (not the 3G)  For some reason I though you had done the 3G one.

I just loved how they took the standard Gemini decent stage from the SM, and scaled it up with a tube in the center....  Used the Same SRMs and everything

 

[Pappystein]

For those of you wondering,   I have been trying to finish the Titan IV/CT3 article.   It is done except I have an entire paragraph and a half on the "updates" from the previous generation Titan 34D Rocket.   Most of those changes I wrote about are now in question.    I have been researching for almost 3 weeks now to try to VERIFY the existence of the LR87-AJ-11A and 91-AJ-11A engines as quoted in several places (Wikipedia, Ed Kyle's Space Launch Report etc)  

I joined NASASpaceFlight.com 's L2 package to get access to more information.   I posted an RFI for hard data....   I got two of the most prodigious posters of data on the Titan family to reply.   One owns a copy of Aerojets own history of the AJ23 family (the LR87, LR91 and a few other production engines) Says there is zero reference even in Aerojets, the USAF or other works on the LR87-AJ-11A.       The other big poster goes on to talk in great detail about the LR87-AJ-11A....   

About the only thing I HAVE found out is the sub-versions I mentioned previously.... the -11A.1 and the -11A.2.....    the number after the period indicates if it has the Air launched Skirt or the ground launch skirt.  There are different ablative skirts used on the LR87-AJ-9 and -11 depending on if they were lit on the ground or lit in flight.     This allowed the engine to gain a little more thrust through the bulk of it's operating range and improved over all efficiency.       As to which one is which..... no one has responded yet.

 

 

[SpacedInvader]

Has anyone here managed to get the RealFuels-Stock engine configs to work with BDB? I'm running into a serious issue where any engine that had multiple configs defined by BDB gets "stuck" when using the RF configs and I can't throttle it at all or adjust its throttle limiter. I've been working on it on my own for a day now and have already asked on the RFS thread, but I'm hoping someone here also uses those configs and has figured out a way to make them work correctly.

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

Has anyone here managed to get the RealFuels-Stock engine configs to work with BDB? I'm running into a serious issue where any engine that had multiple configs defined by BDB gets "stuck" when using the RF configs and I can't throttle it at all or adjust its throttle limiter. I've been working on it on my own for a day now and have already asked on the RFS thread, but I'm hoping someone here also uses those configs and has figured out a way to make them work correctly.

Not me,  I made my own fuel patch to add AZ-50/NTO to the Hypergols but I didn't spend time doing each and every Hypergol combo.  Becomes too hard to manage.  Beyond the Hypergols the other engines have near the correct fuel ratios.

 

[Cloakedwand72]

Any chance of adding in the James town base & Sea dragon concept?

[SpacedInvader]

3 hours ago, Pappystein said:

Not me,  I made my own fuel patch to add AZ-50/NTO to the Hypergols but I didn't spend time doing each and every Hypergol combo.  Becomes too hard to manage.  Beyond the Hypergols the other engines have near the correct fuel ratios.

 

Did you actually try the RF configs and weren't able to get them to work, or did you just skip RF entirely? I saw earlier in this thread you said you weren't really a fan of RF so you use your own configs. I'm specifically trying to see if anyone who does use RF was able to get them to work...

[Zorg]

2 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

Did you actually try the RF configs and weren't able to get them to work, or did you just skip RF entirely? I saw earlier in this thread you said you weren't really a fan of RF so you use your own configs. I'm specifically trying to see if anyone who does use RF was able to get them to work...

BDB no longer supports Real Fuels internally, since ValiZockt took over there has been an effort to provide compatibility for BDB via patches carried within RealFuels itself. Im not sure of the status in terms of how complete those configs are but iirc a lot if not most things in BDB have been patched. If you have issues I would check over here:

 

[mrcharlesboispace]

Best thing ever,

Works great with modular launch pads and real plume, i highly suggest you download them for the best experience (your choice)

Thanks for it!
 

Charles  

[SpacedInvader]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

BDB no longer supports Real Fuels internally, since ValiZockt took over there has been an effort to provide compatibility for BDB via patches carried within RealFuels itself. Im not sure of the status in terms of how complete those configs are but iirc a lot if not most things in BDB have been patched. If you have issues I would check over here:

 

I did ask over there before asking here, but as that thread isn't very active, I'd hoped to find someone here who uses RF who might have run into the same problem. That said, I've managed to find the error in the configs that caused the issue and I'm working on a solution right now. I'll try to get it into RFS, but I might also post it here in case anyone else runs into the same issue.

[Zorg]

4 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:

I did ask over there before asking here, but as that thread isn't very active, I'd hoped to find someone here who uses RF who might have run into the same problem. That said, I've managed to find the error in the configs that caused the issue and I'm working on a solution right now. I'll try to get it into RFS, but I might also post it here in case anyone else runs into the same issue.

Looking at your post on RF its possible its a limitation of B9partswitches moudule switching feature as well. not sure as im not familiar with the RF engine module personally. It may be worth opening an issue on the B9PS github or thread. The module switcher does have a few edge cases where there are problems here and there (it could very well be a config issue but I suspect otherwise).

 

Edit: could it also be that some of those engines have been set to not be throttleable for realism?

Edited February 7, 2021 by Zorg

[Zorg]

Thanks to @OrbitalManeuvers just about all the BDB cameras should have configs for Neptune Camera. Available on the github master now. 

Neptune camera, by @Beale, adds fun old school effects to images you can capture directly to your screenshots folder. I think you guys will enjoy it  

 

[SpacedInvader]

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

Looking at your post on RF its possible its a limitation of B9partswitches moudule switching feature as well. not sure as im not familiar with the RF engine module personally. It may be worth opening an issue on the B9PS github or thread. The module switcher does have a few edge cases where there are problems here and there (it could very well be a config issue but I suspect otherwise).

 

Edit: could it also be that some of those engines have been set to not be throttleable for realism?

It is possible that they were set to be non-throttleable for realism, but I've not been able to find any discussion of that on either thread as of yet. Also, those would be the only engines I've found in the entire RFS config library that were set up like this. And I'd also point out that, while I know relatively little about realistic engine configs, I've learned from using RF for years that most engines are at least somewhat throttleable, though the deep throttle control the game gives us is very unrealistic. From what it seems like, the most likely explanation is that the person making the configs might have mis-copied some lines instead. In many places they used this code block:

minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$
maxThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$

Which then set the engines to only allow for a single thrust output, even preventing the thrust limiter function from working.

Instead I think this is just the result of the author pasting the same "#$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$" line over and over for the configs and failing to change half of them to "#$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/minThrust$". After all, there are more than 150 instances so it might have been easy to get into a groove and just keep going.

To be fair, I could be wrong and they were intentionally set to zero throttleability, but if not, fixing the issue is as simple as doing a find and replace to swap "minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$" with "minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/minThrust$" in the BDB config files.

EDIT: Beyond those lines, it seems pretty much everything else in the configs is working correctly except for some incorrect references to ModuleRCSFX instances that don't exist.

Edited February 7, 2021 by SpacedInvader

[Zorg]

6 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:

It is possible that they were set to be non-throttleable for realism, but I've not been able to find any discussion of that on either thread as of yet. Also, those would be the only engines I've found in the entire RFS config library that were set up like this. And I'd also point out that, while I know relatively little about realistic engine configs, I've learned from using RF for years that most engines are at least somewhat throttleable, though the deep throttle control the game gives us is very unrealistic. From what it seems like, the most likely explanation is that the person making the configs might have mis-copied some lines instead. In many places they used this code block:

minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$
maxThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$

Which then set the engines to only allow for a single thrust output, even preventing the thrust limiter function from working.

Instead I think this is just the result of the author pasting the same "#$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$" line over and over for the configs and failing to change half of them to "#$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/minThrust$". After all, there are more than 150 instances so it might have been easy to get into a groove and just keep going.

To be fair, I could be wrong and they were intentionally set to zero throttleability, but if not, fixing the issue is as simple as doing a find and replace to swap "minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/maxThrust$" with "minThrust = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]/minThrust$" in the BDB config files.

I would say the vast majority of engines in BDB are in fact not throttleable at all in real life. Since the issue is of balance in terms of IRL vs in game (and other existing configs) I guess you need to continue the discussion with the Real Fuels people or make a personal patch for yourself.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Zorg

[SpacedInvader]

2 minutes ago, Zorg said:

I would say the vast majority of engines in BDB are in fact not throttleable at all in real life. Since the issue is of balance in terms of IRL vs in game (and other existing configs) I guess you need to continue the discussion with the Real Fuels people or make a personal patch for yourself.

For the time being, that's what I've done, and I do plan on bringing it up on the RFS thread as I can't rule out the possibility that it was done on purpose.

[CobaltWolf]

11 hours ago, Cloakedwand72 said:

Any chance of adding in the James town base & Sea dragon concept?

Jamestown - I could see it being added some day, but no time soon. Once the Saturn/Apollo revamp on the essential parts is done, I'd rather get more LM variants than something completely new.

Sea Dragon - Uh, sorry, no. I'm not interested in making stuff on that side of the AM/FM divide

 

2 hours ago, Zorg said:

I would say the vast majority of engines in BDB are in fact not throttleable at all in real life. Since the issue is of balance in terms of IRL vs in game (and other existing configs) I guess you need to continue the discussion with the Real Fuels people or make a personal patch for yourself.

If I had my way, they'd all have realistic throttling Not like it makes it particularly more difficult. 

 

Also, heads up if anyone is around, I'm planning on streaming for a couple hours this afternoon once I take care of my housework. (Sorry, Pappy)

[SpacedInvader]

18 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Jamestown - I could see it being added some day, but no time soon. Once the Saturn/Apollo revamp on the essential parts is done, I'd rather get more LM variants than something completely new.

Sea Dragon - Uh, sorry, no. I'm not interested in making stuff on that side of the AM/FM divide

 

If I had my way, they'd all have realistic throttling Not like it makes it particularly more difficult. 

 

Also, heads up if anyone is around, I'm planning on streaming for a couple hours this afternoon once I take care of my housework. (Sorry, Pappy)

Personally this is one area that I tend to prefer less realism... IDK why, but I often find myself stuck in a launch vehicle gap, where the payloads I'm launching are too light for larger launch vehicles, but still require more dV than the smaller LVs can manage for its weight. My perennial solution is to overbuild and then dial back the thrust limiter until I get into the 1.2-1.5 SLT range. That's why this whole thing came up for me... I'm at a place where smaller rockets didn't seem to cut it, so I stepped up to an Atlas and ended up being so overpowered that it either overshot the target altitude by hundreds of km or burned up in the atmosphere. Currently I'm fiddling with stage dV on a Redstone to try to put my payload on a mun intercept, but my dV budget is getting razor thin and I really hate trying to fly without some decent reserves so I'm getting more tempted just to go back to the Atlas and use my now-throttleable engine configs to make it work.

This all said, I'm genuinely curious what the correct approach to this situation would be if the engines were truly unthrottleable and you had to carry a mass too small and too big at the same time. Start shaving off parts to save weight? Carry ballast to make the larger LV work?

[CobaltWolf]

13 minutes ago, SpacedInvader said:

Personally this is one area that I tend to prefer less realism... IDK why, but I often find myself stuck in a launch vehicle gap, where the payloads I'm launching are too light for larger launch vehicles, but still require more dV than the smaller LVs can manage for its weight. My perennial solution is to overbuild and then dial back the thrust limiter until I get into the 1.2-1.5 SLT range. That's why this whole thing came up for me... I'm at a place where smaller rockets didn't seem to cut it, so I stepped up to an Atlas and ended up being so overpowered that it either overshot the target altitude by hundreds of km or burned up in the atmosphere. Currently I'm fiddling with stage dV on a Redstone to try to put my payload on a mun intercept, but my dV budget is getting razor thin and I really hate trying to fly without some decent reserves so I'm getting more tempted just to go back to the Atlas and use my now-throttleable engine configs to make it work.

This all said, I'm genuinely curious what the correct approach to this situation would be if the engines were truly unthrottleable and you had to carry a mass too small and too big at the same time. Start shaving off parts to save weight? Carry ballast to make the larger LV work?

Well, IRL you're usually designing payloads to fit the LV - so if you have a bunch of spare weight, usually that just means the payload doesn't have to be scaled back / receive as much weight savings as otherwise. 

Overall I wouldn't think that a probe payload wouldn't effect the TWR of the LV that much, if that's your problem..?

EDIT: Oh, also, Apollo dev stream starting!

Edited February 7, 2021 by CobaltWolf

[SpacedInvader]

21 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Well, IRL you're usually designing payloads to fit the LV - so if you have a bunch of spare weight, usually that just means the payload doesn't have to be scaled back / receive as much weight savings as otherwise. 

Overall I wouldn't think that a probe payload wouldn't effect the TWR of the LV that much, if that's your problem..?

Not the probe per se, but the dV needed for the upper stage / probe to do what I want with it and have extra left over for maneuvering if needed. With this specific mission I'm trying to orbit the mun and getting that dV uphill is proving tricky with my current tech level of engines. I think that's the other half of this problem, between the limited ignitions and limited early performance of engines imparted by RF, I'm kinda stuck in a situation where the Redstone can just barely lift enough weight into orbit to finish the mission, but there's essentially zero room for error. I'm using an Ablestar upper stage and I'm able to get my probe onto an intercept with the mun with ~75dV leftover in the stage after its two burns, so not much room for error there. I'm still playing lego-rocket to see if I can tweak a few hundred extra dV out of it though.

Edited February 7, 2021 by SpacedInvader

[Foxxonius Augustus]

Let us join together in Hype!

[billbobjebkirk]

4 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Jamestown - I could see it being added some day, but no time soon. Once the Saturn/Apollo revamp on the essential parts is done, I'd rather get more LM variants than something completely new.

TBH if there were to be moonbase stuff I'd prefer for it to be closer to the designs that were actually considered, like LESA, SLAMB, or any of the other various LM truck-based shelters and rovers.

Actually, that would be a pretty decent idea for a BDB spinoff mod, if only I had any idea how to model and texture.

[CobaltWolf]

4 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

Not the probe per se, but the dV needed for the upper stage / probe to do what I want with it and have extra left over for maneuvering if needed. With this specific mission I'm trying to orbit the mun and getting that dV uphill is proving tricky with my current tech level of engines. I think that's the other half of this problem, between the limited ignitions and limited early performance of engines imparted by RF, I'm kinda stuck in a situation where the Redstone can just barely lift enough weight into orbit to finish the mission, but there's essentially zero room for error. I'm using an Ablestar upper stage and I'm able to get my probe onto an intercept with the mun with ~75dV leftover in the stage after its two burns, so not much room for error there. I'm still playing lego-rocket to see if I can tweak a few hundred extra dV out of it though.

The Redstone is a fairly anemic rocket, so I'm not surprised you're having trouble getting a useable upper stage + payload into orbit. Maybe try replacing it, or at least the engines?

52 minutes ago, billbobjebkirk said:

TBH if there were to be moonbase stuff I'd prefer for it to be closer to the designs that were actually considered, like LESA, SLAMB, or any of the other various LM truck-based shelters and rovers.

Actually, that would be a pretty decent idea for a BDB spinoff mod, if only I had any idea how to model and texture.

Never too late to learn

[Starhelperdude]

54 minutes ago, billbobjebkirk said:

Actually, that would be a pretty decent idea for a BDB spinoff mod, if only I had any idea how to model and texture.

I had a similar idea with a spinoff mod for another mod and I'm currently learning with my team

Believe in yourself, pack it on, then you can (hopefully) do it!

[Pappystein]

15 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

Did you actually try the RF configs and weren't able to get them to work, or did you just skip RF entirely? I saw earlier in this thread you said you weren't really a fan of RF so you use your own configs. I'm specifically trying to see if anyone who does use RF was able to get them to work...

I did,   Prior to B9PartSwitch being a thing.   At the time, RF seemed to "lock" your stages... harder to do Lego-building.  

I like Lego building.   Also I don't care that the rocket has the EXACT same burn ratio as the real rocket.   IF I can get close enough... in a Close enough universe... I am A-OK.   Which Is part of the reason I use AZ-50 and NTO for ALL my Hypergolic rockets...

5 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

This all said, I'm genuinely curious what the correct approach to this situation would be if the engines were truly unthrottleable and you had to carry a mass too small and too big at the same time. Start shaving off parts to save weight? Carry ballast to make the larger LV work?

Several things,   You fly the flightpath as needed for your payload and your orbit.  You do not fly the same launch on a Titan 2GLV/IIIB for both Gemini and Keyhole do you?   So you change your flight profile to match your payload.      Look at tools like MechEngineer(Redux) or MechJEb.   You do not need to use the auto pilot in MJ for example.  There are a lot of good indicators added by those mods to help you fly even if you are flying yourself.

 

5 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

EDIT: Oh, also, Apollo dev stream starting!

Awesome... While I am at work.   AGAIN

skimmed through the recording on twitch.   Looks like you did some fun work!

[biohazard15]

6 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

If I had my way, they'd all have realistic throttling Not like it makes it particularly more difficult.

Fortunately, you hadn't.

Because it DOES make it particularly more difficult for MJ users (like me). I'm all okay with reaistic throttling being optional, but not "BDB stock". Hopefully there will be no such nasty surprises in future updates!

[Pappystein]

49 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:

Fortunately, you hadn't.

Because it DOES make it particularly more difficult for MJ users (like me). I'm all okay with reaistic throttling being optional, but not "BDB stock". Hopefully there will be no such nasty surprises in future updates!

I have zero issue with this.   Just remember to let the engine spool up before launching.    Real life there are no perfect orbits...  Why should they be so in KSP!